5.  The applicants are:
1)  Ms Rumani Sulimovna Gekhayeva, who was born in 1947 and lives in the village of Ulus-Kert, the Shatoyskiy District, the Chechen Republic;
2)  Ms Zlikhat Ismailovna Dugayeva, who was born in 1950 and lives in the village of Rubezhnoye, the Naurskiy District, the Chechen Republic;
3)  Ms Subani Saydkhasanovna Akhyadova, who was born in 1965 and lives in the village of Dachu-Borzoy, the Chechen Republic;
4)  Ms Zubidat Saydkhasanovna Gekhayeva, who was born in 1971and lives in the village of Chechen-Aul, the Chechen Republic; and
5)  Ms Aynet Saydkhasanovna Malsagova[1], who was born in 1975 and lives in the village of Dachu-Borzoy, the Chechen Republic.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  The applicants are members of one family. The first applicant is the mother of Ms Kurbika Zinabdiyeva, who was born in 1968. The third, the fourth and the fifth applicants are sisters of Kurbika Zinabdiyeva. The second applicant is the mother of Ms Aminat Dugayeva, who was born in 1988.
8.  Since childhood Kurbika Zinabdiyeva had suffered from chronic brain conditions, a brain tumour and epilepsy, and was often bedridden due to migraines and sickness.
9.  At the material time Kurbika Zinabdiyeva was assisting her mother, who worked as a house painter. Aminat Dugayeva, then fifteen years old, was attending the 9th grade of secondary school. Kurbika Zinabdiyeva lived with the first applicant at 12 Shkolnaya Street, the village of Ulus-Kert. Aminat Dugayeva had come to visit and was staying with them.
10.  On the night of 15 to 16 May 2003 the first applicant, Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva slept at home. The first applicant slept in a separate room while the two other women shared another room. At about 3 a.m. the first applicant heard the noise of a vehicle engine coming from outside. Kubrika Zinabdiyeva woke up and looked out of the window; she told the first applicant that “Russians” were around their house. The women opened the door and saw around twenty men wearing blue uniforms and balaclava masks at their doorstep. One of them ordered the women not to move in Russian. The first applicant and her daughter inferred that the men belonged to the Russian military.
11.  The servicemen ordered both women to lie on the floor. They wrapped adhesive tape around the first applicant's head so that her face, eyes, nose and mouth were fully covered; she could see nothing and could barely breathe. Her wrists and ankles were also tied up with adhesive tape. Some time later the first applicant heard one of the servicemen order another one to check on her to see whether she was still alive, and the tape was then slightly loosened. However, it was still hard for her to breathe and she was making a wheezing noise. One of the servicemen shouted at her, threatening to shoot her unless she kept quiet. After that the first applicant heard their footsteps disappearing and the vehicles leaving.
12.  The first applicant remained lying tied up on the floor for some forty minutes until neighbours and the head of the village administration arrived. They had all seen the military coming and had heard the noise and the shouting from the first applicant's house. Before approaching the first applicant they checked that no bomb had been planted under her, and then they untied the tape and released her. Having been freed from the restraints, the first applicant and her neighbours searched the house, but neither Kubrika Zinabdiyeva nor Aminat Dugayeva was there.
13.  The house was in a state of disorder, apparently because it had been searched. Some valuables and cash had disappeared, and so had the identity papers of the first applicant and her daughter and the latter's medical documents. The neighbours and the head of the village administration told the first applicant that the servicemen had come with two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and two UAZ all-terrain military vehicles. The head of the village administration, moreover, had overheard one serviceman shout to another to move quickly and call him “Misha”.
14.  The Government submitted that, according to the Prosecutor General's Office, on 19 May 2003 the Shatoy District Department of the Federal Security Service (“FSB”) and the Shatoy District Department of the Interior (“ROVD”) had received complaints from the first applicant concerning the kidnapping of Kubrika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva by unidentified persons on the night of 15 to 16 May 2003.
15.  Since 16 May 2003 the applicants, primarily the second applicant, have been searching for Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva. The first applicant joined the search with a slight delay, as she was ill after the events of 16 May 2003. Both in person and in writing they applied to various official bodies, trying to find out the whereabouts and fate of those missing. The applicants retained copies of some of their letters to the authorities and the replies, which they submitted to the Court. Their attempts to find out the whereabouts of Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva and the ensuing criminal proceedings can be summarised as follows.
16.  Immediately after the disappearance of Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva had been discovered, the head of the village administration and the village policeman went to the town of Shatoy and visited the prosecutor's office of the Shatoy District (“the district prosecutor's office”), the department of interior of the Shatoy District (“the ROVD”) and other official bodies. Later on the same day the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants also visited the same authorities in person and filed applications requesting a search for the missing women to be ordered.
17.  The arrest of Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva was reported in the media, with reference to official sources, as carried out by the federal forces. The regional TV channel broadcasted an interview with an official of the district prosecutor's office and with a representative of the Regional Operative Quarters of the Anti-Terrorism Department for the Northern Caucasus (региональный оперативный штаб Управления контр-террористической операции на Северном Кавказе); both of them stated that the women had been arrested by the federal forces.
18.  On an unspecified date the neighbours and the head of the village administration were questioned by the officers of the ROVD who came to Ulus-Kert. They made statements about the circumstances of the night when Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva had disappeared.
19.  On an unspecified date the applicants wrote to the Office of the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic. On 30 May 2003 the latter agency enquired about the applicants' case to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic.
20.  On 30 May 2003 the first applicant wrote to the acting President of the Chechen Republic, to a deputy of the State Duma and to the military prosecutor of the Chechen Republic complaining about the detention of her daughter and demanding assistance in establishing her whereabouts. On 4 June 2003 the second applicant filed a request with the same authorities for a search for her daughter to be carried out, demanding that urgent measures be taken and that she be given access to her daughter who, as she pointed out, was still under legal age.
21.  On 7 June 2003 the district prosecutor's office opened criminal investigation file no. 54016 into the kidnapping of Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva.
22.  On 9 June 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the district prosecutor's office.
23.  On 24 June 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the applicant and the Office of the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic that the investigation in the applicants' case was underway.
24.  On 26 June 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 forwarded the applicants' complaint to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20119.
25.  On 15 July 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings in respect of the kidnapping of Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva.
26.  On 28 July 2003 the second applicant requested from the military prosecutor of the Shatoy District a detailed update on the progress of the investigation.
27.  On 6 August 2003 the second applicant wrote to the Prosecutor General of Russia requesting assistance in the search for Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva. On 8 August 2003 the letter was forwarded to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic.
28.  On 25 September 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the applicant's letter to the district prosecutor's office.
29.  On 29 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the second applicant, upon her enquiry, that the criminal investigation into the kidnapping had been suspended for failure to identify those responsible. It was also stated that the whereabouts of the missing women were unknown.
30.  On 30 September 2003 the second applicant requested assistance in the search for her kidnapped relatives from the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor's office”).
31.  On 28 October 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the applicant's letter to the prosecutor's office of the Naurskiy District for review and action as appropriate.
32.  On 10 November 2003 the second applicant filed a number of petitions with military and civil prosecutors of all levels, with the military commander of the Chechen Republic and with the acting President of the Russian Federation, calling for urgent measures to be taken in the case of her missing relatives.
33.  On 29 November 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the first and second applicants that the investigation in case no. 54016 had been suspended.
34.  On 5 December 2003 the second applicant was informed by the administration of the President of the Russian Federation that her letter would be examined by the President's Human Rights Commission.
35.  On 8 December 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the second applicant's complaint to the district prosecutor's office.
36.  On 14 December 2003 the district prosecutor's office sent the applicants a letter reproducing the letter of 29 November 2003 verbatim.
37.  On 15 December 2003 the UGA prosecutor's office informed the first and second applicants that there were no grounds to claim the involvement of the military in the kidnapping of their daughters and made a general reference to criminal case no. 54016.
38.  On 23 December 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded another complaint by the second applicant to the district prosecutor's office and indicated that the investigation should be pursued more actively. On the same date they informed the second applicant that it was impossible to identify the persons who had kidnapped her relatives and that the investigation had been suspended.
39.  On 6 January 2004 the ROVD informed the first and second applicants that all possible measures were being taken to find their kidnapped relatives and to identify the perpetrators.
40.  On 31 January 2004 the ROVD wrote to the second applicant that all questions concerning criminal proceedings in the case were to be addressed to the district prosecutor's office.
41.  On 4 March 2004 the President's Human Rights Commission forwarded the first applicant's letter to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic with a request that they keep her informed about the measures taken in the case.
42.  On 13 March 2004 the Ministry of Interior of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigative measures taken in the search for Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva and to identify those responsible had so far been fruitless.
43.  On 1 April 2004 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant's letter received from the President's Human Rights Commission to the district prosecutor's office. It was endorsed with an order to take measures to accelerate the search for those kidnapped.
44.  On 8 April 2004 the UGA prosecutor's office informed the applicants that an inquiry had been carried out but had not established any involvement of the military in the kidnapping of their relatives.
45.  On 21 April 2004 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic ordered the district prosecutor's office to take measures further to the applicants' complaints, in particular to intensify the search for their kidnapped relatives.
46.  On 15 May 2004 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 forwarded the applicants' complaint to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20119.
47.  On 20 May 2004 the district prosecutor's office resumed the investigation in case no. 54016. The decision stated that Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva had been kidnapped by unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms who had arrived in four APCs. On 27 May 2004 the applicants were informed of that decision.
48.  On 27 June 2004 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20119 informed the second applicant that an inquiry had been carried out but had not revealed any involvement of army servicemen in the abduction of her relatives. The letter also referred to the criminal investigation in case no. 54016.
49.  On 27 June 2004 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation.
50.  On 5 July 2004 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the applicants' complaint to the district prosecutor's office and ordered that it be considered on the merits.
51.  On 22 July 2004 the UGA prosecutor's office forwarded the applicants' complaint to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20119.
52.  On 27 July 2004 the deputy military prosecutor of military unit no. 20119 wrote to the second applicant a letter denying involvement of the military in the abduction of her relatives. It read in particular as follows:
“... the fact that the kidnappers had armoured personnel carriers does not in itself demonstrate involvement of the military in the crime, because the same type of military vehicles is also used by the services of [the Ministry of] the interior.”
53.  On 30 July 2004 the UGA prosecutor's office ordered the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20119 to review the applicants' file.
54.  On 9 August 2004 the UGA prosecutor's office forwarded the first and second applicants' complaint to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20119 and indicated that the facts complained of should be reviewed and verified.
55.  On 10 August 2004 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20119 informed the administration of the Chechen Republic that the investigation in case no. 54016 had been suspended for failure to identify those responsible.
56.  On 21 May 2003 the Shatoy District Department of the FSB forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the district prosecutor's office.
57.  On 30 May 2003 the district prosecutor's office refused to institute criminal proceedings against unidentified persons in relation to the kidnapping of Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva for lack of evidence of a crime. In so far as relevant, the decision read as follows:
“It was established in the course of an inquiry that at about 3.40 a.m. on the night of 15 to 16 May 2003 men wearing military uniforms had entered [the first applicant's] house and taken away ... Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and ... Aminat Dugayeva.
... The actions of unidentified persons formally constitute a corpus delicti punishable under Article 126 of the Russian Criminal Code, that is, kidnapping. However, the media, in particular special issue no. 28 of the newspaper Schit i Mech in Chechnya, [disseminated] an article concerning the arrest of two women implicated in the organisation of the terrorist attack at Dubrovka, Moscow, in October 2002.”
58.  On 7 June 2003 the district prosecutor's office quashed the decision of 30 May 2003 as there had been no documents confirming the arrest of Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva; further, there had been no information on special operations carried out in the village of Ulus-Kert on 15 and 16 May 2003. They instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned number 54016. On the same date the first applicant was informed of that decision.
59.  On 19 June and 15 July 2003 the district prosecutor's office granted the first and second applicants victim status in case no. 54016 and questioned both women. The first applicant submitted that at about 3 a.m. on 16 May 2003 around ten unknown armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks had taken away Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva. The second applicant submitted that at the time of her daughter's abduction she had been away from her home village.
60.  On 7 August 2003 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in case no. 54016 for failure to identify those responsible and ordered the ROVD to find the perpetrators. In so far as relevant, the decision read as follows:
“At about 3.40 a.m. on 16 May 2003 four APCs arrived at the house of [the first applicant]...; unidentified men wearing military uniforms got out of the APCs and, having used violence against [the first applicant], took away her daughter Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and ... Aminat Dugayeva.
In the course of the preliminary investigation requests were sent to all districts of the Chechen Republic, as well as requests to the Shatoy, Sharoy and Itum-Kalinskiy districts, but none of the measures taken have produced any positive results in establishing the whereabouts of Zinabdiyeva and Dugayeva and those implicated in their kidnapping.”
61.  On 20 May 2004 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 7 August 2003 as the investigation had not been comprehensive and resumed the proceedings in case no. 54016. In so far as relevant, the decision read as follows:
“... It transpires from the minutes of [the second applicant's] interview that in July 2003 she learned from the head of the [village administration], Ms <V.> that her daughter A. Dugayeva and K. Zinabdiyeva were alive and in good health and that the head of the FSB had told [Ms <V.>] that he had helped to carry out their arrest.
It transpires from the minutes of Ms <V.>'s interview that at about 3 a.m. on the night of 15 to 16 May 2003 she heard noise coming from the street and saw APCs driving through the village. 15 minutes later she went outside to the street and saw that the gates to [the first applicant's house] were open. Having entered the house, she saw [the first applicant], tied up, sitting in the corner of the room. ... In the course of the interview the investigator did not clarify whether Ms <V.> had said that those kidnapped had been alive and in good health and, if so, who had told her so. No measures were taken to indentify eye-witnesses to the crime.
[The investigators] did not establish the source of information of the article entitled “Recruiters of female suicide bombers have been arrested” published in issue no. 28 of the newspaper Schit i Mech and did not send requests to the prosecutor's office of Moscow to verify whether they had any data on implication of [Ms] Dugayeva and [Ms] Zinabdiyeva in the organisation of the terrorist attack at Dubrovka in October 2002...”
62.  On 27 May 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first and second applicants that the investigation had been resumed.
63.  On an unspecified date Ms <V.>, the head of the village administration, was questioned and submitted the following. On the night of 15 to 16 May 2003 she had come to the Gekhayevs' house and released the first applicant. The latter had informed her of Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva's abduction. Ms <V.> had not been acquainted with the head of the Shatoy District Department of the FSB and had never told the second applicant that she had heard from that official of Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva's arrest.
64.  On unspecified dates the district prosecutor's office questioned a number of persons who submitted that they did not know anything of the kidnappers.
65.  On several occasions the district prosecutor's office ordered the ROVD to establish Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva's whereabouts and to identify witnesses, but no positive results were achieved.
66.  The district prosecutor's office requested information on Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva's arrest from the Shatoy District Department of the FSB, one of the military units located near Ulus-Kert, the military commander of the Shatoy District and all the prosecutors' offices of the various districts and towns of the Chechen Republic. It was established that Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva had not been arrested and that no criminal proceedings had been instituted against them. No dead bodies corresponding to the description of those missing had been found. The military commander of the Shatoy District submitted that no special operations with the use of military vehicles had been carried out in Ulus-Kert on the night of 16 May 2003.
67.  The district prosecutor's office requested information on interviews by public officials referred to by the applicants from two local TV channels. No reply followed.
68.  On 27 June 2004 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in case no. 54016. They stated that a number of investigative measures had been taken, in particular, that requests had been sent to the editor-in-chief of the Schit i Mech newspaper and to the prosecutor's office of Moscow and that the first applicant's neighbours and the head of the village administration had been questioned. On the same date they informed the first and second applicants of that decision.
69.  On 11 August 2006 the district prosecutor's office quashed the decision of 27 June 2004 and resumed the investigation in case no. 54016, stating that it was necessary to take a number of additional investigative measures and informed the first and second applicants accordingly.
70.  On 11 August 2006 the district prosecutor's office decided to grant the third applicant's request for victim status, but refused to allow her access to the case file because the investigation had not been completed. On 12 August 2006 the third applicant was admitted to the proceedings in case no. 54016 as a victim of the crime. She was questioned and submitted that she had learned of her sister's kidnapping from the first applicant.
71.  On 14 August 2006 the district prosecutor's office dismissed the first applicant's request to institute criminal proceedings in relation to the events of 16 May 2003 under Article 139 § 2 (unlawful violent intrusion into one's dwelling) and Article 325 § 2 (theft of identity papers) of the Russian Criminal Code for failure to comply with statutory limitations. On the same date, at the first applicant's request, they instituted criminal proceedings on account of the theft of her money and a carpet under Article 158 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated theft). The case file was assigned number 65019 and then joined to case no. 54016.
72.  The investigation in case no. 54016 was supervised by the Prosecutor General's Office.
73.  Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose most of the contents of criminal case file no. 54016, providing only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status, as well as of several notifications to the relatives of the suspension and resumption of the proceedings. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General's Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.